[swift-evolution] SE-0025: Scoped Access Level, next steps

[Matthew Judge]

On Mar 29, 2016, at 20:47, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> If Scala style access modifiers were adopted for Swift then a private(file) modifier would also be necessary to give the current private functionality.
> 
> I could imagine having these options:
> 
>    public                            // visible to all everyone
>    private(scope-name, scope-name, …)    // visible to specified scopes (plus current scope)
>    private                            // visible only to current scope
> 

Allowing multiple "scope-name"s is a lot of flexibility and power, but not sure it's useful/worthwhile.

 For the current discussion, I would think "scope-name" should be limited to an enclosing scope only.  So you can say "private(Outer)" from an Inner class or "private(#file)" from within a class, but not "private(ClassA)" from within ClassB. 

(This would also solve the ambiguity of how to reference the main ClassA or a specific extension to ClassA... "private(ClassA)" can only refer to whichever scope of ClassA you are currently in.)

> scope-name could perhaps be:
> 
> * A type name (or Self, which would mimic C++-style private, or perhaps even C++-style protected depending on how we treat inheritance)

But, this is getting into type-based access which is beyond the scope of SE-0025 right?

> * A module name (or #module for the current module)
> * A file name string (or #file for the current file)
> 
> And then the default would simply be `private(#module)`.
> 
> Alternatively, the parameterized level could be given a different name, like `internal` or `shared`. If that were the case, then `#module` might simply be the default.
> 
> -- 
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution